I’ve been trying to analyze the roots of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. The conclusion I’ve come up with so far is that it needs to be understood as a combination of forces and influences, different but not mutually exclusive.

One view is that Multiculturalism “just happened,” an accidental result of technological globalization. Although global migration pressures and modern communications definitely contributed, this thesis is, in my view, almost certainly too simplistic. There is mounting evidence that Multiculturalism was deliberately encouraged by various groups. If anything, it is an indirect result of globalization through multinational corporations and the creation of an international political elite whose mutual loyalty increasingly supersedes national interests.

I’ve heard some commentators say that all the most destructive ideologies of the modern era have originated in Europe. But frankly, I’m wondering whether Multiculturalism is the one stupid idea that was actually exported from the United States to Europe. Danish writer Lars Hedegaard claims Multiculturalism comes from the United States following the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. After thinking about it, I find this to be a plausible explanation.

Perhaps Multiculturalism partly is an anti-European ideology, with the United States – and later Canada, Australia and New Zealand – distancing themselves from their European heritage, whereas Europe has distanced itself from itself. I noticed on one conservative American blog that it was perfectly permissible to trash European culture in any way possible, but when I carefully asked some questions about whether the cultural impact of massive Latin American immigration would be exclusively beneficial, I was accused of being “racist.”

Some readers of my essays have suggested that Multiculturalism originated in Canada. Author Claire Berlinski even believes that it was invented in Switzerland. But, with all due respect, the impact of Swiss or Canadian cultural influences abroad has been rather limited. The United States, however, has exerted powerful cultural influence all over the world since WW2, and has been in the position to export such an ideology.- - - - - - - - - -The Civil Rights movement took place against a backdrop of a Western youth rebellion with Marxist influences. Although Multiculturalism may not be directly rooted in Marxist teachings, which helps explain why it has received support by some right-wingers, its anti-Western attitudes and radical Egalitarianism are at least compatible with ideas of forced equality, and aspects of Multiculturalism are sufficiently similar to Marxism to explain why its most ardent supporters are left-wingers, and why Political Correctness, the soft-totalitarian form of censorship employed to enforce Multiculturalism, is so appealing to them.

If we postulate that Multiculturalism and Political Correctness were initially born out of a Western loss of cultural confidence, but have since been largely utilized by the Western Left, this would explain why it exists all over the Western world, but strongest in Western Europe, which has had a more powerful Marxist influence and a greater historic loss of self-esteem than the USA. It would explain why Eastern Europeans, who have just experienced decades of Marxist indoctrination, are somewhat more resistant to it than are Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans have also been much less exposed to the Eurabians of the European Union, who champion Multiculturalism for their own reasons.

The best summary I can come up with thus looks something like this: Multiculturalism originated in the United States during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, which triggered a complete re-thinking of American cultural identity in favor of repudiating the European aspects of its heritage to transform into a “universal” nation. Multiculturalism was exported to the rest of the Western world through American cultural influence, and was picked up by a Western Europe, still with deep emotional scars following its near self-destruction during two world wars, which was then in the process of leaving its colonies and suffered from a post-colonial guilt complex and the identity crisis associated with this.

Multiculturalism thus originally had its roots in a cultural identity crisis in the West, but it was quickly expropriated by groups with their own agendas. This period, the 1960s and 70s, was also the birth of the Western Cultural Revolution, a hippie youth rebellion against the established Western culture and institutions that was deeply influenced by Marxist-inspired ideologies. The anti-Western component in Multiculturalism suited them just fine. Following the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 90s, when economic Marxism suffered a blow in credibility although it didn’t die, larger segments of the Western political Left switched to Multiculturalism and mass immigration as their political life insurance, and wielded the censorship of Political Correctness and “anti-racism” as an ideological club to beat their opponents and continue undermining Western institutions.

On top of the Marxist influences, in Western Europe we had another groups of Euro-federalists and Eurabians, with a different but overlapping goal of breaking down the national cultures through the promotion of Multiculturalism in favor of a new, artificial identity. The process of globalization didn’t create these impulses of Western self-loathing, as indicated by the fact that non-Western countries such as Japan have not been overwhelmed by immigration to the same extent as the West, but it reinforced some of them.

Technological globalization has increased migration pressures to unprecedented levels, but it has also enabled a global political and economic elite of individuals, including some centrists and right-wingers, who no longer feel any close attachment to their countries, but mainly to the international elites who provide them with career opportunities.

These centrists, rightists and Big Business supporters may not be as actively hostile to Western culture as some left-wingers are, but they don’t do anything to uphold it, either, and use Multiculturalism to hide the fact that they have lost or abandoned control over national borders. Globalization has thus simultaneously created more migration and less political will to control migration.

The combination of all of these factors, in addition to the resurgence of a global Islamic Jihad, is gradually creating a demographic and democratic crisis in the West. Many Westerners sense that their media and their politicians are no longer listening to them, and they are perfectly correct. Those who feel a loyalty to their culture and their nation states feel betrayed, because they are.

30
comments:

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that the US is being "blamed" here for multiculturalism. However, no one stuck a gun to the heads of the Europeans who bought it. In fact, not only has Europe bought this product, they've embraced it ardently and made it both sancrosanct and inviolate.

Meanwhile, states all across the US are now passing laws against affirmative action.

I think it's fair to say that multiculturalism first acquired political power in the US. But I think it sprouted from some enlightenment ideas - the concept of moral truths being relative which was interpreted as meaning all ideas are equally inadequate/adequate and so that cultures derived from all sorts of different ideas are equally valuable. So in a way multiculturalism is the expression of the enlightement rejection of organizing society around absolute truths. Problem is, no other culture besides the enlightment suscribes to this view, so that it would seem to be only a transitionary phase until the most aggressive culture, Islam being a good candidate, takes over. I think Enlightenment definitely produced some good ideas. But it also produced some really bad ideas, which are largely behind the crisis in the western world. for example....

1.That society cannot legitimately ostracize bad conduct and encourage good conduct. "As long as I'm not hurting anybody, I'm living my life as I want, no one should judge me" However, there are certain behaviors which are detrimental to society and others which are beneficial to society, which however if legislated would make the state too overbearing. So traditionally societies dealt with it by a sort of middle way, honoring those who engaged in good conduct and holding in contempt those who did the bad. This is geeting harder and harder to do in the US.2. Free love. Now several hundred years after the enlightemment, we have the answer to the rhetorical question "who does it hurt?". Well, it kills your birthrate. In traditional societies, sex is primarily considered a way of expressing love in a long term monogamous relationship. Naturally, that idea is associated with high birthrates. In many western societies, sex is primarily recreational activity practiced in short term relationships to avoid boredom. When one has enough fun, one may think about getting married. Biologically speaking, there usually isn't enough time left to have many kids, nor do those marriages often last long enough to have many kids, because generally once one gets used to disposable short-term relationships it's hard to change. But this problem will be taken care off evolutionarily. Since traditional sexual morality means high birth rates, and post-sexual revolution sexual behavior means low birth rates, either the Europeans or Americans will revert to believing in traditional sexual morality, or they will be replaced by peoples that believe in it.

Your argument is of the sort that a physics professor I once had called "arm-waving." You need the cultural equivalent of "doing the math" in physics.

Arm waving about the civil rights movement and European guilt won't do. Ideas are spread by books, articles and speeches. Trace the literature of multiculturalism back to its sources, well-read and much-quoted writings. You might start with its present-day advocates and follow their references back in time. Eventually you'll find people who think they have a "new idea."

Don't forget that multiculturalism is ancient in the Middle East. For many centuries, various groups, mostly religious, have been able to manage affairs such as marriage with little or no state inference. What they said was a marriage was a marriage. What they said was a divorce was a divorce. Unfortunately, that led, not only to the present unpleasantness, but to strict rules to keep people from switching allegances to find a softer set of rules. You die in the culture into which you were born.

That's also why Western, secular multiculturalism is so odd and shallow. It doesn't let various groups set their own legally enforcable rules, so it doesn't really permit a multiplicy of cultures. It dictates one set of universal rules that everyone must accept (i.e. easy divorce, pervasive porn, poor crime enforcement, and a will-sapping welfare state). It even criminalizes criticism of its dictate-of-the-moment, treating free speech as a "hate crime." Most important of all, it results in a few at the top deciding what is or is not permitted (i.e. head scarves), suggesting that it's little more than an excuse for bureaucratic bullying, a convenient replacement for now-discredited Marxism and rabid nationalism.

Mr. Perry, I think you took a sharp turn away from understanding this topic. Multi-culturism as a government policy--multi-culturalism as I understand Fjordman to be explaining it--is a modern creation, not a medieval custom re-appearing in Europe

You can look at what American and European governments have actually DONE in the past four decades to see what multi-culturalism is. It does not really matter 'who started it', although determining the origin might help stop it

Fjordman, you are correct in saying that the multicultural, Political Correctness ideology had its birth in the Civil Rights Movement. In the early 60's, every perceived racially-motivated transgression was a club used to good effect on the heads of southern politicians. As the notion of racial inequity, along with the baggage of guilt certainly didn't originate in the South, it most probably was advanced by the ACLU, leftist professors in the Ivy League schools, the Ford Foundation, and various leftist think-tanks. The word "nigger" disappeared from the vocabulary of all southerners, except for poor, white trash who didn't give a sh*t what anybody thought. What were acceptable names for blacks morphed with the times, though it is still, even today, acceptable for one black to call another black a nigger. Along with unacceptable appellations for blacks, such as: spooks, spades, jungle bunnies, alligator bait, jigs, etc. came the realization that the blacks had, in fact, suffered much at the hands of the white man. As for the institution of slavery, per se, white Southern Americans certainly didn't invent the practice, but with the production of Alex Haley's TV series "Roots", a national guilt was born, and we had a perfect victim upon which to launch the Cultural Marxism ideology in the United States. What is interesting is that even though Haley, who lifted the "Roots" theme from Harold Courtlander's book,"The African", was successfully sued to the tune of $650 thousand for plagarism, still perpetrated the hoax, and upon the basis of "Roots", David Wolper launched "the most successful mini-series of its time", according to Stanley Crouch of the New York Daily News. What is sad is that the blacks bought the hoax, hook, line, and sinker, because it legitimized their victimhood. The rest, as they say, is history.

I would like to dispute what Inklingbooks posts above that multiculturalism has existed in the middle east for centuries.

I would argue that parts of the middle east have existed as multi-racial or multi-religious societies. In Morocco today there are Berbers, Black Africans and Arabs, but the Arabs have done their best that there is only one culture, that of Arabic inspired islamic culture.

There used to be Jews in Morocco, and a tour I went on in Tangiers was proud to point out the former places they lived and worshipped. But the tour guide could not point out anywhere that there were Jews living now. Presumably they all left in the last 30 years as the pressure on them increased since they were not on the same cultural level as those who submitted to the islamic culture.

Jews used to be tolerated across the Middle East, but not exacly welcomed. That was not multiculuralism. Same for Zoroastrians and enclaves of Christians or Sikhs, these people yes live alongside Arab who have submitted to Islam, but they are there out of tolerance or Jizyah.

And that comes back to the problem of multiculturalism in Europe, the US, Australia and southern Africa. The most aggressive and energetic culture can exploit multiculturalism for its' own ends and further its' own racial or cultural dominance.

I'm sure any reader of this will see that this is exactly what is happening, from muslims voting into power candidates from their own national group in Dutch elections, to solicitors in England refusing to appear as advocates in court without their Burkha on, to the messages of support for Sheik Hilali in Australia when he stated that women who dress immodestly incite rape from (muslim) men.

In agreement with the two most recnt posters, the more I think about Fjordman's thesis of multi-culti originated in America, the more valid it sounds. Europe was not 'diverse' at all until relatively small numbers of Turks, Kurds, and Arabs arrived in the larger cities in the 70's, and there was not a highly visible presence until the 80's--and it was still limited to urgan areas.

By this time ( early 80s ), America was already suffering full-blown PC multi-culti. By 1990, "Political Correctness" was the cover story of Time magazine, but Europe was only beginning to confront widespread immigration and cultural assualts.

I assume the post we are responding to is only a 'work in progress', as it was not developed very extensively and needs serious "tweaking" --no references to meth/speed intended

You need to go back farther -- to the turn of the century and look at people like the anthropologist, Franz Boas, who advocated ideas like the human mind is a blank slate and that all humans are the same (i.e. all that differs is cultures).

Check out some of Prof. Kevin MacDonald's research, such as this:http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html

There was also a Norwegian academic (d*mned if I can remember his name!) who wrote in the 1920s? 1930s? 1940s? about the plight of blacks in the U.S. He kinda "kicked off" politically correct thinking about human populations and how we're all the same.

Stepen Renico asked : "aren't Europeans the ones electing these multiculturalism advocates in the first place?"

Formally and in theory, yes. Just like you Americans participate in the election of Kofi Annan. The EU is the incarnation of indirectness : The Commission is appointed by the various governments and functions as a trash bin (when some high-profile national politician goofs him- or herself up beyond rescue - like the Danish commissar of agriculture, Mrs. Fisher-Boel - it's a convenient way of getting rid of them - "kicking them upwards"). And the exorbitant bureaucracy isn't elected, it sits there forever and doesn't care for one second what people think. Take the "European Constitution" which was sacked by French and Dutch referendums, but carries on full speed nevertheless.

Well, there is something called "The European Parliament". A collection of the worst clowns from every party across Europe. A true "Mickey Mouse parliament" (Quote from a former Commissar). Here the same rules apply : when some local politicians become sufficiently corrupt to be a burden to the party, it's a piece of cake to get them "elected" to this "parliament". They can do no harm there. In fact, they can do nothing at all.

As I've said many times here : the fight for a free Europe starts with the demolition of the EU monster. Those multi-culti nuts and halal-hippies are more dangerous than the Islamic savages who don't have a chance without those useful idiots.

Actually, Kofi Annan is more out of America's hands, as the rest of the world has a say in his sorry presence. A more accurate parallel would be judges on the US Supreme Court. Judges generally hold the political views of the President who appoints them. Moreover, they're appointed for life.

In my last reply, I actually had in mind those politicians elected directly like Europeans, like Zapatero in Spain or Prodi in Italy. Elect leftist multiculturalists like that, and they do their best to ensure that their EU representation reflects their values. Multiculturalism, like it or not, whether championed by the EU or by national governments, seems to be a self-inflicted wound.

Stephen, I agree. When Europeans elect Zapatero, Prodi, Persson, Shroeder, Chirac etc... and you Americans elect Carter, Clinton, Pelosi, Murtha etc... we're all - temporarily - insane. But I have a strong belief in the sanity of the western world and as time goes by the grotesqueness of multiculturalism will become evident to all and everyone. If not sooner, then when the multi-culti lunatics enter the scaffold and meet the long-bearded, long-shirted executioner.

And somehow I have the impression that Europeans are regaining sanity.

It's a thoughtful and interesting piece as everything Fjordman does. As for me, naturalized american, I can read his criticism of America without nervous breakdowns. I also agree that too harsh a criticism of Europe is frequent among american "conservatives". It is interesting, why the harder our civilization is attaked, the stronger becomes the fight between ourselves and mutual blaming? Is it an inherent feature of the liberal society? This pattern I could clearly observe in many places: between parties of one country (US, Israel), between America and Europe, between Russia and the west (I know here many will say that Russia is on the other side of the frontline - but it only supports my observation). Regarding the history of multiculturalism, does it really matter who was the first to catch the desease? It will teach nothing, besides mutual blaming. Rather, we should identify the reason of the desease and try to cure as many people as we can.

And somehow I have the impression that Europeans are regaining sanity.

Kepiblanc,

I just hope that it happens quickly enough. My impression lately is that there is a "point of no return" for demographics, from which a people can't recover. I don't want to see Europeans get bred out of their own countries, nor those who are left to be crippled with ennui.

I do wonder, too, if Europe will regain its sanity or undergo a backlash. Looking at Europe as both an American and a fellow citizen of Western Civilization, I'm sometimes not sure if a win by LePen or Nick Griffin is desireable, either. As time goes on, however, it becomes more likely that the extremists like them, with their probably extreme methods, will be the only alternative which works.

I only read about Europe. You live in Europe, so I was hoping you could tell me if my worries about demographics and extremism are accurate or exaggerated.

Stephen, I don't think le Pen and his likes have a chance. There are other forces besides the neo-nazi's, skinheads and wing nuts. I'm most familiar with Denmark, and here we have a political party (Danish People's Party) which is strongly anti-nazi (including Islam) and a staunch supporter of Israel. Very influential. Our country has the most draconian anti-immigration laws in the western hemisphere and a recent survey has shown that the birth rate among Muslims is fading out. And many Muslims are leaving.

And I know a thing or two about France : I have a small flat in Paris (Rue Charlot) in the Marais district. Great neighbors. This part of the city is the home of the original Jewish community and a lot of Jews - including very orthodox ones - live there. When the "youth's" showed up last November, the citizens immediately assembled at the nearby Sappeurs & Pompier station, formed a guard and in no time the "youth's" disappeared. The upcoming elections will probably have Mr. Sarkozy running for president and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he wins.

I have to agree with Fjordman's theory. Truthfully I was not aware of the term 'multiculurism' until 9/11, but certainly felt it's effects much earlier - starting in college 13 years ago when I went from "American" to "Asian-American". My friends were reluctant to accept the new labels and definantly said that when asked for their nationality, they will first say "American". The whole Asian-American label was fosted upon us to validate the new African-American label. None of us saw this coming and asked how this came to be. If this was born out of the civil rights movement it makes a heck alot of sense. I was under the impression that Europe's adoption of multiculurism was a backlash against America's melting pot system, saying that the latter is oppressive because it demands the new Americans to give up part of their old culture and thus multiculturism would be more humane. What the multiculturist's advocates seem to forget is the the part of the old culture that is being given up is because it is incompatible with the U.S culture; like having two wives (my grandfather's culture). Multiculturist would have allowed my father to sell my mentally handicap sister to any man looking for a green card and U.S citizenhip, because after all, it was part of his culture growing up. I had fierce and bitter debate with a German professor who had completely bought multiculturism hook, line, and sinker.

Contrast Myrdal's writings with comments such as this from William N. Vaile, a U.S. Representative from Colorado in 1924 (pro-immigration restriction):

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

Part of the essence of Marxism is the notion that nobody is born better than anybody else. Therefore if anybody winds up wealthier than the average, it's not because he was smarter or more energetic or whatever -- it's because he's an evil exploiter.

Expand this notion, and you get multi-culturalism, where all cultures are equal (but non-capitalist cultures are better and more pure).

Expand this notion still further, and you get extreme environmentalism, where animals have equal (or superior) rights to humans.

I once was asked to give firearms instruction to the daughter of a friend. The daughter is a bit of a Leftist, and she chickened out at the last minute. I explained to my friend that owning a firearm for self-defense is a political statement: you are saying that you regard your life, and the lives of your family, as more important than the life of any who would harm you. Such a viewpoint is incompatible with being a Leftist (although owning a firearm for revolutionary purposes would be compatible)

I heard a lecture from a former U of Washington Professor, which stated that multiculturalism was a late '40s Soviet institution for the purpose of subjugating East Germans and intigrating them into a common Soviet people, but was abandoned under Krushchev. I haven't seen any comments on this idea yet, thoughts?

‘The temporal apostles of the repressive tolerance’, taught by the totalitarians of temper in Germany, France and USA, made their entry in the early 1960s.

When we looked 30 years back from 1991 – to the time before the welfare system was introduced the same temporal apostles of the repressive tolerance first aimed for Marxism later on for Internationalism that is the same. The difference is that they got the liberal and conservative voters to adopt a least the decisive temper too. Their leaders joined already in 1968 in Denmark In Britain for example they did not until recently..."

From quite another angle:Reform-pedagogy that in its starting point aimed for reforming/altering the children to obedient cattle but with a few leaders among them.

Their strongest initiative in Europe: 1921, an international aggreement in Calais, France with New Education Fellowship (N.E.F.)led by John Dewey.

Back to doctor Wilhelm Wundt -(The Leip Connection)and almost at the same time. G.W.F. Hegel with his dialectic logic (="God's conscious before the Creation")in Berlin, just before the Modern Breaking Through 1860s and 1870s in Nordic countries.

Then go a little further back to (1712-1778) Jean-Jaques Rousseau's 'Emile' or the basic philosophy prescribing the "duties of the state", combined with John Locke's view (1690) that "children are a blank slate" and lessons from Rousseau on how to "write on the slate". Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) gave – among few in the 18th century - a very personal and passionated contribute to an understanding of the state, its so-called nature, its beginning and its objects. Rousseau even call enlightenment and culture in question. His thoughts have had a tremendous effect on the Western societies in the 19th and 20th century. Later on in his life he began to distinguise between false and true culture and between what is natural in the "natural state" and in the "state of community". He claimed that a natural urge is in the human being - a dominating power - to be open, spontanious, good, sympathetic and thankful. That these instinctive and real feelings are more original than (and before) the reason, its the emotional life alone that makes the human being great and good, it is certainly not the brain. Rousseau’s writing are filled with contradictions and obscurities. But also his way of writing made a tremendous impression on the readers, even today. Rousseau got a least three children with different women outside marriage. The Scottish philosopher, minister and economist David Hume found three of Rousseau's children in an public institution for orphans in Paris, France, and took them into his private care.

You could compliment with Darwin:Charles R. Darwins (1809-82) so-called great works "On the Origin of Species by Means of natural Selection", 1859. He really wrote for time spirit and he admitted that before he died.

Then go back to the revolutioner of temper by repressive tolerance Jürgen Habermas (former member of Jungfolk)who is a member of a EU-thinktank today. Go to Foucault, Derrida, metafor-teori, diskurs-analyse. Take a summer course at Studium Generale in France.

A few keywords:Children is like animals and must be treated like animals.We must end up in a One World Order.

Tell me who decided that the books of mentioned figures above had to be published.

I think Bill Lind's analysis is accurate - it started in Europe (1920s, Frankfurt School), went to USA (1930s), assumed its current form in the USA in the 1960s ; and thence returned to Europe. See:http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

Fjordman, I agree with you that multiculturalism is the product of the new world, most particularly the USA. However, this line of thinking originated in the unique environment of the USA, New Zealand, and other "new world" countries that have been dealing with multiple cultures and races from the very beginning. The primary difference between the USA and Europe is that in the USA there is not a particular race that goes along with being an American. The reason for this is the decimation of native population of the USA and other new world countries. (Without placing blame on any particular group or going into how this happened, I think for my purposes we can just acknowledge that this happened.) We essentially started over with a nearly blank slate of a country, and although it began primiarily by the efforts of Europeans, it is not limited to European people. The fact is that most American nationals do not claim North America as their fatherland, and I think most of us remember where our ancestors are from, whether we are of European, Asian, or African ancestry. Because we know this, I believe that we are free of many of the problems Europe is facing. Here we actually do have multiple cultures, and multiculturalism is just a poor (albeit damaging) attempt at adapting to this fact. It is inappropriate for Europeans to adopt this attitude, because in Europe you are the native population, and being European does mean being a native to that land. It would be possible for this to change, but in my opinion it is only possible when the native population is basically rendered non-existant, and I do not think any group of people would really desire that end. I have lived most my life in an area of the USA that is about 35% "people of European ancestry" =) and because of this I have always cherished Europe. When it comes down to it, even though I am an American in my day to day life, it is my European heritage that made me what I am on a deeper level. That being said, I truly hope that Europe finds itself again, because even though there are many nice things about being an American, I have always envied the wholeness that Europeans have - that is ethnicity, language, history, land, etc. - all going together. It has given me comfort that even though I may not have this for myself, it still exists in Europe. But now that is not the case. We don't need two Americas! Keep Europe as European as it can be! Anyway, that is my two cents.

jonson, Jews are victims of multi-culti and not instigators; you probably 'learned' anti-Semitic ideas in public schools and in politicized colleges in the USA, where such ideas are so thick in the atmosphere that they worm their way into most people's unconscious

Just a few words, perhaps. Affirmative action is institutionalized racism - a thing we tried, obviously unsuccessfully to remove as now affirmative action generally means "hire anyone but someone who is white".

About multiculturalism - I sense that it is an American invention but it has its roots in two pieces of legislation passed in 1964 and 1965. The first was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That bill was euphemistically designed to give "equal opportunity" to American blacks. But - what to do! So hard on its heels was the relaxation of our immigration laws in 1965 through the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. This relaxation of the immigration laws was designed to increase the numbers of non-white immigrants and thus dilute the opportunity and promise of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for American blacks.

Dr. Hugh Davis Graham, deceased, spent his entire academic life studying the effects of "affirmative action" and immigration policy. His book, Collision Course, The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America, was published at last six months after his death.

One way of saying it is that what government giveth with one hand it taketh away with the other. Shortly after Dr. Graham's book was published, an article appeared in the National Review pointing out that so-called black leaders in America had sold out their followers and had gone along with the relaxation of immigration laws.

At that time, America embarked upon its course of "multiculturalism". Do not limit your view to the Civil Rights movement creating "multiculturalism" in America. It took both acts of legislation to bring that about. The litany of multiculturalism that the blacks bought into was created ultimately to move black Americans a few steps farther from the goal of equal opportunity. The flood gates were opened and now you see the black community in America relegated to second highest in the list of minorities. A position from which blacks will never recover and will find their political power, except locally, eroding.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was seen by LBJ as the way to buy the black vote for Democrats (although they did not vote for this bill) for as he said, "the next 200 years." The relaxation of our immigration laws was designed to weaken the promise of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making the heinous "affirmative action" protocol take everyone under its wing who was not white. That is why in America today, when a baby is born to a white mother and a black father, the baby is considered "black" for welfare purposes. There was a terrible time in our past when one drop of "black" blood made a person black. We have reached a time now when hardly no amount of "white" blood can make a person white. In fact, a person is better off under our current protocol of institutionalized racism if he or she can find any drop of non-white blood in their family tree.

But the relaxation of immigration laws which opened the doors to mostly non-whites enabled businesses and such who were strapped by the "affirmative action" protocols to hire non-blacks and still meet the government imposed "quotas" in hiring practices.

And as a further demonstration of the impact of this "multicultural" society we have created upon our young, they are taught in some two-year schools that on applications they should use their initials, only surnames, and no indication of gender - such is the way of the multiculturalists - to cheapen us all and to dilute our birth rights. Our children must hide their identity so that they will not be discriminated against in the pursuit of jobs and careers, in this I am speaking specifically of our black and our white children.

In the United States today, any culture that is not of Western Civilization is revered. Western Civilization/ Culture in America today is the only one not welcomed under the cloak of "multiculturalism". Those of us who claim Western Civilization as our heritage must be very much feared indeed.